ChatterBank2 mins ago
So That's What Farage Meant
35 Answers
Nigel Farage appeared to dilute his call for Syrian refugees to be given asylum in Britain yesterday, saying that it should be offered only to Christians.
The UKIP leader was criticised by some in his party for making the offer over the weekend. However, he appeared to clarify his call yesterday by saying that while Syrian Muslims could seek shelter in Islamic countries, Christians had no such option.
“It’s bad enough for Sunni and Shia, [but] at least there are neighbouring countries that will take them,” Mr Farage told the Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2. “Where on earth are the Christians going to go? Christians are now a seriously persecuted minority.”
His clarification came after Earl Howe, a Tory minister, had agreed that Britain should consider asylum for Syrians. However Grant Shapps, the Tory chairman, said that the provision of financial help was more useful to Syrians than asylum for a few refugees.
[The Times]
Did you think he wanted to help Syrian refugees, regardless of the religion of each?
The UKIP leader was criticised by some in his party for making the offer over the weekend. However, he appeared to clarify his call yesterday by saying that while Syrian Muslims could seek shelter in Islamic countries, Christians had no such option.
“It’s bad enough for Sunni and Shia, [but] at least there are neighbouring countries that will take them,” Mr Farage told the Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2. “Where on earth are the Christians going to go? Christians are now a seriously persecuted minority.”
His clarification came after Earl Howe, a Tory minister, had agreed that Britain should consider asylum for Syrians. However Grant Shapps, the Tory chairman, said that the provision of financial help was more useful to Syrians than asylum for a few refugees.
[The Times]
Did you think he wanted to help Syrian refugees, regardless of the religion of each?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FredPuli43. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We are a secular nation, not a specifically christian one. The idea of taking a few token refugees merely to bolster our status in the eyes of the world and to satisfy our own code of decency is bad enough - to then backtrack and proclaim that we would only take Christian refugees is not sensible - it is odious.
Oh yes he does have a point
//“Where on earth are the Christians going to go? Christians are now a seriously persecuted minority.” //
Will you tell the 8 million Christians in Egypt or shall I?
They're so seriously persecuted that during unrest this year muslims ringed a church to protect it and those worshiping inside.
http://
Anyone would think Farage didn't know what he was talking about
//“Where on earth are the Christians going to go? Christians are now a seriously persecuted minority.” //
Will you tell the 8 million Christians in Egypt or shall I?
They're so seriously persecuted that during unrest this year muslims ringed a church to protect it and those worshiping inside.
http://
Anyone would think Farage didn't know what he was talking about
even if people don't actively say they are Christians, that has and still largely continues to be our main religion, and until we all put on any form given to us that we are atheists, then we can't say we are a secular nation.
many don't go to church, but their still consider themselves Christians.
2 and a half million Muslims, and rising, so we are hardly secular.
many don't go to church, but their still consider themselves Christians.
2 and a half million Muslims, and rising, so we are hardly secular.
"we are not a secular nation, if you consider that most people in Britain are Christian faith based, and Islam is second only to Christianity in UK, so the census forms showed last time out."
We absolutely are a secular nation. The fact that one religion might have a larger proportion of adherents in neither here nor there. We are not a theocracy. The idea of letting some asylum seekers in based around their religion is odious.
We absolutely are a secular nation. The fact that one religion might have a larger proportion of adherents in neither here nor there. We are not a theocracy. The idea of letting some asylum seekers in based around their religion is odious.
Things change and evolve, mushroom. The Head of State is being changed to "defender of faiths" - all rather than one. And since the Head of State is a purely decorative role, it does not carry any particular legislative authority or mandate for the religiosity of the country as a whole. I would hope in time that the need for a defender of faiths can be dropped altogether, but I do not suppose that is going to happen anytime soon.
And as for Bishops in the House of Lords - everyone recognises that this is an anachronism. As the Lords is reformed, so will those seats disappear.
However much you might wish otherwise, the legal framework of this country is based around secular values. We are not a theocracy.
And as for Bishops in the House of Lords - everyone recognises that this is an anachronism. As the Lords is reformed, so will those seats disappear.
However much you might wish otherwise, the legal framework of this country is based around secular values. We are not a theocracy.
//We are not a theocracy//
true. but neither are we secular. the uk is a constitutional monarchy in which Christianity is by law established. we still have a Head of State sworn to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel in the United Kingdom. it would take an act of parliament to change that, regardless of what the high-thinkers believe the monarch has to swear to be defender of.
true. but neither are we secular. the uk is a constitutional monarchy in which Christianity is by law established. we still have a Head of State sworn to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel in the United Kingdom. it would take an act of parliament to change that, regardless of what the high-thinkers believe the monarch has to swear to be defender of.
"rue. but neither are we secular. the uk is a constitutional monarchy in which Christianity is by law established. we still have a Head of State sworn to maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel in the United Kingdom. it would take an act of parliament to change that, regardless of what the high-thinkers believe the monarch has to swear to be defender of"
Yes, but for all cultural and legislative purposes - irrelevant. We are a constitutional monarchy in name only.But I really do not care whether or not we attempt to pay lip service to one particular faith or another; What does concern me is the inference by Farage that somehow we should distinguish between asylum seekers on the grounds of professed faith. That is simply odious.
Yes, but for all cultural and legislative purposes - irrelevant. We are a constitutional monarchy in name only.But I really do not care whether or not we attempt to pay lip service to one particular faith or another; What does concern me is the inference by Farage that somehow we should distinguish between asylum seekers on the grounds of professed faith. That is simply odious.
